The Owner’s Engineer role: Suggestions from a practitioner’s experience

Background

If a client, prior to agreement, clearly and concisely describes the services needed and engages with the service provider to review the scope, the misalignment can be avoided or at least minimised. However, at the outset of a project, the client is often not clear what services are needed and, to cover all scenarios, the scope description becomes a mystifying narrative in an extensive stack of procurement documents. During project implementation it often becomes apparent to the client what the real needs are. In some cases, thanks to the wide narrative, it may be possible to motivate that the expectations were always indicated.

In turn, the service provider may, either due to excessive documentation and limited time, or because of “student syndrome,” give the scope description a cursory glance and submit a proposal without a proper clarification of the requirements.

?My experience

Having recently provided an Owner’s Engineer (OE) service as part of the broader project management appointment, my colleagues and I were challenged by some misalignment between us and the client on the specifics of this role. Some OE role descriptions include the word “essentially,” which lead me to believe that there is still a degree of flexibility/uncertainty in the understanding of the role.

The construction contracting approach was Turnkey (detail design, procurement and construction responsibility rested with the supplier), but the client needed an independent, experienced representative in technical matters (an OE team).

This service fits well with the project management role, as it is dedicated to ensuring that the project adheres to its specifications and meets the deliverables. However, there were different expectations from different client representatives and the scope narrative was not clear on all aspects either.

Opposing expectations from client team members were noticeable and an example of "contradictory" questions that were leveled at us is:

• “Why are you and your team checking designs in so much detail, when the Turnkey designer takes professional responsibility anyway? You should spend less time and only make high level comments!”????????????????????

vs.

• “Did you sign off on the design? Are you sure the detail is correct? Sign-off on the roof design, as it is delaying the supplier!” (No doubt the latter originated in the supplier playing us off against our client, as final responsibility for design sign-off rested with him and his team anyway, but so did his meeting the agreed construction timelines).

We were fortunate to be able to assemble a team that was not only experienced in their fields of expertise, but also (at least in part) in the client’s specific structural, mechanical, electrical and instrumentation needs. Members were also insistently independent, which led to several intense (if not heated), debates about what was acceptable in the interest of the project, even if it did not meet the strict technical expectations of individual team members. A challenge for architects and engineers is often to accept that an approach can meet the required quality and deliverables, even if it is not the way he/she would have solved the matter himself.

?Key themes

We should be agile and be prepared to adjust as interpretations change, but an accepted baseline understanding of the service not only provides a degree of comfort to both parties but can also reduce paperwork and establish common ground for negotiations and agreement.

From my experience, there are a few key items to be considered in reaching an agreed scope between client and consultant for the role of OE. This is not suggested an exhaustive list and no doubt specific situations may require alterations and additions.

These are:

• Professional accountability,
• OE team experience,
• Review expectations,
• Review method,
• Appointment

In the paragraphs below, I propose questions that can guide towards a mutual understanding and I also elaborate briefly on our experience and approach.

Professional accountability

The OE is not the detail design engineer and therefore do not sign off on a design for the purpose of professional liability. Hence:

• Are team members required to be professionally registered and will their signature on any documentation attract professional liability?
• If not, how sure is the client that he gets value for his investment in the OE team and how will this be measured?

?Although our team members were registered professionals, we agreed with the client that the OE team members cannot carry technical professional liability. As a supplier we did, however, declare our role clearly to our insurers, who adjusted our professional insurance (and premium) to account for the expanded role as reviewers and advisors.

?OE team experience

• ?Are years of experience in members’ individual fields of expertise sufficient, or is experience in the client’s specific industry equally or more important?
• Is the experience of one team member, or the project manager of the client’s industry perhaps sufficient to lead a team with only experience outside of the client’s industry?

?In consideration of the client’s industry, we secured the services of a mechanical engineer with extensive experience in the clients’ environment and specifically in the facility where we performed the service. A sizeable part of the work involved structural work and although our structural engineer’s industry specific experience was limited, his structural design experience was extensive and proven. The combination of skills ensured a successful outcome.

Review expectations

• ?Does the OE review the designs, considering industry standards, client specific requirements and “fit for purpose” only?

or

• should the review be detailed, including checks on calculations and challenges of design approaches?

We followed a detailed approach, which initially resulted in confrontational situations with the supplier’s engineering team (“us vs. them”). Intervention by the project manager and direct engagement with the supplier’s contracts manager, resulted in the easing of tensions and for the second half of the project, the deliverables were a result of a team effort with early, frequent and direct consultations. This especially limited the need for rework. We were fortunate that our client did not shy away from attending ad hoc reviews to provide clarity on some previously unclear requirements.

• ?Does review and formal comment on a design indicate the end of the OE’s role,

or

• should the OE ensure that each comment is satisfactorily closed?

Our OE members were diligent in closing out topics and the frequent and amicable engagement, described above, made this role much easier in the second part of the project. “In person” engagements aided in clarifying design approaches in real time and reduced the need for back-and-forth responses on an impersonal collaboration platform.

?Review method

When and in what format will the designer present his design to the OE for review?

• At 30% progress/basic design or other identifiable stage?
• Again, at a later stage (before the issue of Approved for Construction drawings)?
• In the form of a 3D model review, supported by 2 D drawings, or merely loading design information on a collaboration portal?

We started out by sharing information and comments on a collaboration platform at an estimated (subjective) 30% design progress. Initial communication was formal and rigid. Although this allowed for detail recording of comments, counter comments and explanations, it was a laborious and cumbersome process.

Once the 3D model reached acceptable maturity and with facilitation by the client, reviews became focused on problem solving and decision making (rather than an impersonal pointing out of differences).

The advent of Covid 19 limited face to face engagements, but it also forced the team to engage successfully on virtual platforms. When restrictions were eased, engagements continued on a virtual platform, with dedicated disciplines attending pre-arranged “on site” engagements, while other disciplines would be able to follow via the virtual platform.

All decisions, comments and minutes of review meetings were still formally captured on the collaboration platform

Following a review:

• When and in what format are the responses from the OE and contractor required?
• Are response time durations indicated in the Contractor appointment conditions? Is that duration too long to support project progress?

On our project, decisions and comments were formalised on the collaboration platform.

We found that if the contractual terms in respect of duration were followed to the letter, decision making and reviews were slow and not in support of the project goals. In agreement with the supplier’s contract manager, shortened durations were agreed on, which was beneficial to both the client and supplier.

Appointment??terms

• ·??????Hourly based/ fixed price or other terms?

This is a tricky question, which I do not think has a straightforward answer. As per request, we submitted a fixed price for the service, which included an allowance for support beyond the targeted completion date. Having worked on projects for over twenty years, we knew this was a judicious approach.

However, as with all procurement situations, a reduction in cost was pursued. We had to break down our fixed cost in terms of hours/month and subsequently the involvement duration was pulled back to extend only to the targeted completion date (thus “saving” the hours beyond project completion).

Scope changes and Covid related delays resulted in the completion date being extended. Although we were, to a certain extent, able to adjust our resource allocation for Covid delays, this was not possible for scope changes and in the end we were not able to close out our service to our own satisfaction and a part of that role fell on the client’s own resources.

Conclusion

A collective understanding, between client and supplier, of any scope of service is always important to project success. The expectations for the role of Owner’s Engineer can often be different for the contracting parties and should be clarified in advance. The upfront consideration of key topics may aid client and service providers to limit time consuming discussions and possible confrontational situations later in the project. Key topics suggested are Professional accountability, OE team experience, Review expectations, Review method and Appointment terms.

?